Editorial: Benghazi questions deserve answers

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama administration tailored the details of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi to fit a narrative it wanted to present in the weeks leading up to last year's presidential election.

The attack left four Americans dead, including Christopher Stevens, the United States' ambassador to Libya. In the days following the incident, the Obama administration - beginning with United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice - said the incident flared up during protests about an anti-Islam YouTube video.

The latest congressional testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by the State Department's second in command in Libya, however, strongly suggests it was clear from the outset that the attack was a terrorist incident and not a spontaneous response to the video.

Republicans contend the characterization of the attack, which contradicted the Libyan president's assessment that it was an act of terror, hindered the post-attack investigation by American authorities. Some Republicans also say the diplomats still would be alive today if the incident had been handled differently.

The testimony before Congress was riveting. It was led by Gregory Hicks, a foreign service officer who on the night of the attacks tried desperately to summon help. Hicks told the committee, which includes Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, that he initially asked for fighter jets to be scrambled from Italy, but was told they would not arrive for several hours. He then sought help from a special operations team that was based in Tripoli. That team, which had only four members, was ordered to stay in Tripoli to protect staff there.

Pentagon spokesman George Little countered the testimony by saying, "We continue to believe there was nothing this team could have done to assist during the second attack in Libya," according to report in The Washington Post.

Hicks supported the contention that the differences over how the attack was characterized affected the investigation because it diminished Libyan President Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf's ability to lead. The investigation was delayed, and the scene unsecured, for 18 days following the attack, he said.

As the facts become clearer, questions beg to be answered.

Those questions include when the administration knew the incident was a terrorist attack; whether military forces or CIA operatives could have intervened and prevented the deaths; if and why requests for added security were denied; and if a military response was called off even though it may have saved lives. They also demand a clear assessment of why the talking points on the incident apparently were changed.

House Speaker John Boehner said emails and documents the White House has refused to release will answer that last question. The administration should release the documents so the truth can be known.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should return to Congress in the wake of the latest testimony. Clinton already has testified once, but the latest testimony has added details that require further explanation. This shouldn't turn into a political witch hunt, but if Clinton can better explain how the incident unfolded and how the narrative was shaped and for what reasons, she should.

In hindsight it certainly seems that plans to protect key American personnel were inadequate. It also appears that the American government was caught flat-footed and was unable to mount a rescue operation or defend Ambassador Stevens and his staff. Clearly changes need to be made to ensure our personnel in remote, volatile corners of the world are safer.

The narrative should not have been changed. An earlier airing of the facts may not have altered the outcome, but Gowdy and his colleagues are right that the families of the victims and the American people deserve the truth about the circumstances in Benghazi. That is happening now thanks to persistent efforts of some in Congress, including Gowdy, a former prosecutor who has used his courtroom skills expertly in questioning witnesses.

There has been a lot of hand-wringing on both sides of the aisle regarding Benghazi and the ensuing investigations. However, had the Obama administration been more forthcoming in the weeks and months following Sept. 11, 2012, about the realities on the ground and in the halls of power, this issue could have been put to rest by now. As it stands, the American people, the families of these victims and our allies overseas all deserve answers.

What happened in the wake of Benghazi appears to have been an attempt to hide a weak response to a terrorist threat leading up to a presidential election. The Obama administration's response was slow, and flaws were laid bare in a foreign policy that was predicated on the assertion that the war on terrorism was on the wane.

It is clear that we need to build better plans for responding to terrorist attacks on remote outposts and to better coordinate responses to such events. We also need to remind our elected officials that the American people deserve the truth from the outset, no matter what impact it may have on a foreign policy, partisan philosophies or an election. Those principles, not political grudges, need to guide this investigation as it advances; and those questions only can be answered by a thorough and honest vetting of the facts surrounding what happened in Benghazi.